SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1973 Supreme(SC) 285

A.N.RAY, D.G.PALEKAR, P.N.BHAGWATI, V.R.KRISHNA IYER, Y.V.CHANDRACHUD
Kanu Sanyal – Appellant
Versus
District Magistrate, Darjeeling – Respondent


Judgment

BHAGWATI, J:- The short question that arises for determination in this petition under Art.. 32 of the Constitution is whether the production of the body of the person alleged to be unlawfully detained is essential before an application for a writ of habeas corpus can be finally heard and disposed of by the Court. The question is of some importance, affecting as it does the practice and procedure to be followed in an application for a writ which has come to be universally recognised as the most effective protection invented by Anglo Saxon jurisprudence against wrongful deprivation of personal liberty. It is not necessary for a proper determination of the question to recount the facts giving rise to the petition. Nor is it necessary to set the grounds on which the petitioner contends that he has been illegally restrained of liberty. It would be sufficient to state that the petitioner filed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus contending that he has been wrongfully deprived of liberty and that he should be released forthwith from his confinement. The petition was forwarded to this Court by the petitioner from the Central Jail. Visakhapatnam where he is detained as an under






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top